Improving property conditions and landlord behaviour were the main focus of a recent report on the private rented sector in London from the London Assembly's Housing and Regeneration Committee. The report calls for councils to adapt their services and bridge the gaps that exist in many of the capital's town halls between the local private rented sector community and public sector.

Social lettings agencies already exist across the UK in most of the more forward-thinking local authorities. They are council-run service teams who act in many ways like a high street agent. They procure properties from landlords, fill them with tenants and in some cases manage the properties.

They operate independently of each other which means that standards and practices, however excellent, tend to be localised.

The London Councils' report proposes a single agency, where all 33 boroughs connect with each other to act as a central hub for procurement and property management.

Put simply, this would mean that councils from south-east London could more easily connect with landlords from north-west London, in ways that would allow them to discharge their duties to the homeless.

The main issue acknowledged in the report is the problem with the capital's rent levels when matched against caps in housing benefit and ready supply of working people, which causes many landlords to shun tenants on benefits.

The report suggests that a PRS marketing campaign would need to:

• Re-engage with landlords who may have previously left the market or have not considered working with boroughs;• Dispel the misconceptions landlords have about working with boroughs;• Identify the added benefits a London lettings agency would have for landlords.

These are seemingly small, anodyne statements but in real terms they represent a huge uphill task, which the report goes on to address by suggesting a package of incentives:• Rent guarantees covering void periods; • A guaranteed 24-hour void turnaround;• Holding fees for voids and other cash incentives;• A vetting service for new tenants;• Rent direct and more effective liaison concerning housing benefit.

The phrase "misconceptions landlords have about working with boroughs" is curiously worded. Most landlords I speak to are clear that they are not labouring under any "misconception" at all, and that councils are generally too bureaucratic and inflexible to deal with.

The question is, will the stated incentives be enough for London landlords to dramatically lower their rents? This issue is dealt with in paragraph 16 of the report on the benefits for councils of the proposed scheme, where it states "increased supply of (properties) at Local Housing Allowance rates", which is more than a tad optimistic.

Admittedly, the London Councils' report is only at the first stage, suggesting that councils should look at carrying out a more comprehensive study, but I can't see the proposed incentives on their own going anywhere near nudging landlords to reduce rent levels and cosy up to local authorities in any great numbers.

Two main routes are mentioned in the report: to create a central agency office or to create a web-based service where landlords could post their available properties and through which staff could identify landlords and approach them to negotiate rates; the latter is their preferred suggestion because it would be cheaper.

The report as it stands seems to fall into the same trap as so many public sector initiatives in that it appears more concerned with solving its own immediate problems than getting into the mind of the PRS landlord community and devising products and services that they would find attractive.

At a recent meeting I had with the team at City Hall in which I suggested a web-based London-wide agency, the response I received on getting all 33 boroughs to cooperate was: "It would be like trying to herd cats." A fair point, and one which the next stage of the report would do well to address.